Canada and the States | Page 9

we have had a "little England" party in our
country. A Liberal Government, immediately following the Act of
Confederation, took every red-coat out of the Dominion of Canada,
shipped off, or sold, the very shot and shell to any one, friend or foe,
who chose to buy: and the few guns and mortars Canada demanded
were charged to her "in account" with the ruth of the miser. If the Duke
of Newcastle had been a member of that Cabinet such a miserable
policy never could have been put in force; but he was dead. I venture to

think that the whole people of England, who knew of the transaction,
were ashamed of it. Certainly, I saw, a few years ago, that one member
of the very Cabinet which did this thing, repudiated the "little England"
policy, as opposed to the best traditions of the Liberal party.
The "little England" party of the past have tried, so far in vain, to
alienate these our fellow subjects. But, fortunately for the Empire,
while some in the mother country have been indifferent as to whether
the Provinces went or stayed, many in the Colonies have been earnest
in their desire to escape annexation to the States. The feeling of these
patriotic men was well described in December, 1862, by Lord
Shaftesbury, at a dinner given to Messrs. Howe, Tilley, Howland and
Sicotte, delegates from the Provinces of Canada, New Brunswick and
Nova Scotia. He said Canada addressed us in the affecting language of
Ruth --"Entreat me not to leave thee, nor to refrain from following after
thee"--and he asked, "Whether the world had ever seen such a spectacle
as great and growing nations, for such they were, with full and
unqualified power to act as they pleased, insisting on devoting their
honor, strength, and substance to the support of the common mother;
and not only to be called, but to be, sons." And Lord Shaftesbury asked,
"Whether any imperial ruler had ever preferred," as he said Canada had,
"love to dominion, and reverence to power."
Lord Shaftesbury's sentiments are, I believe, an echo of those of the
"great England" party; but, I repeat, "little England" sold the shot and
shell, nevertheless.
Whatever this man or that may claim to have done towards building up
Confederation, I, who was in good measure behind the scenes
throughout, repeat that to the late Duke of Newcastle the main credit of
the measure of 1867 was due. While failing health and the Duke's
premature decease left to Mr. Cardwell and Mr. W. E. Forster--and
afterwards to Lord Carnarvon and the Duke of Buckingham--the
completion of the work before the English Parliament, it was he who
stood in the gap, and formed and moulded, with a patience and
persistence admirable to behold, Cabinet opinion both in England and
in the Provinces. At the same time George Etienne Cartier, John A.
Macdonald, and John Ross, in Canada; Samuel L. Tilley, in New
Brunswick, and, notably, Joseph Howe, in Nova Scotia, stood together
for Union like a wall of brass. And these should ever be the most

prominent amongst the honoured names of the authors of an Union of
the Provinces under the British Crown.
The works, I repeat, to be effected were--first, the physical union of the
Maritime Provinces with Canada by means of Intercolonial Railways;
and, second, to get out of the way of any unification, the heavy weight
and obstruction of the Hudson's Bay Company. The; latter was most
difficult, for abundant reasons.
This difficult work rested mainly on my shoulders.
It may be well here to place in contrast the condition of the Provinces
in 1861 and of the Confederation in 1886. In 1861 each of the five
Provinces had its separate Governor, Parliament, Executive, and system
of taxation. To all intents and purposes, and notwithstanding the
functions of the Governor-General and the unity flowing from the
control of the British Crown--these Provinces, isolated for want of the
means of rapid transit, were countries as separate in every relation of
business, or of the associations of life, as Belgium and Holland, or
Switzerland and Italy. The associations of New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia were far more intimate with the United States than with Canada;
and the whole Maritime Provinces regulated their tariffs, as Canada did
in return, from no consideration of developing a trade with each other,
or with the Canadas, between whose territory and the ocean these
Provinces barred the way. Thus, isolated and divided, it could be no
matter of wonder if their separate political discussions narrowed
themselves into local, sectional, and selfish controversies; and if, while
each possessing in their Legislature men in abundance who deserved
the title of sagacious and able statesmen, brilliant orators, far-sighted
men of business, their debates often reminded the stranger